This is the place to learn more about the Jewish Jesus and to take your understanding of the Gospels to a new level.

03/22/2011

Hebrew Names for Jewish Apostles

Mark 3:16-18

These were the names of the Apostles: There was Simon, whom he surnamed, Peter. There were James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; he surnamed them, Boanerges, which is, the “sons of thunder.” There were also Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite.

Names are important. When someone introduces us to another, and we soon thereafter forget that person’s name, we feel somewhat embarrassed to ask, “I am sorry, but what did you say your name was?” Names are important now, and they were just as important 2000 years ago. Hence, it is appropriate to examine the names of the Apostles. Interestingly enough, the Synoptic Gospels are similar, but not identical. John’s Gospel is significantly different. Nevertheless, what I simply wish to stress here are the Hebrew names of the Apostles. Hebrew names? But of course! Jesus was a Jew and so were his Apostles.

Just as nobody called Jesus, “Jesus,” (see “Jesus or Yehoshua: What’s In a Name?” post of April 5, 2010), Jesus did not call the Apostles, “Simon” or “John.” Rather, he referred to them by their Hebrew or Aramaic names, as follows:

Simon was Shimon. James was Yakov (that is, Jacob). John was Yochanan. Bartholomew was Bar-Talmai (son of Ptolemy). Matthew was Mattityahu, meaning, “gift from God.” Thomas was Tau’ma, an Aramaic name. Thaddaeus was a variant of Theudas, which was a Grecian version of Judas or Yehuda.

Andrew and Philip are interesting because those are clearly Greek names—Andreas and Filippos; there are no Hebrew equivalents. Thus, we may surmise that Andrew and Philip were either Grecian-Jews or Grecian-Gentiles. In all probability, we may discount the theory that they were Gentiles: Jesus was a Jew who saw his mission as teaching and healing his fellow Jews. “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:24. It would be hard to imagine preaching to Jews while having Gentile Apostles.

Judas Iscariot was Yehuda. I will discuss Judas in the next post, along with the “sons of thunder” appellation for John and James.

AM ISAAC MUKISA FROM UGANDA,HELP ME WITH A HEBREW BIBLE,I HAVE BEEN A CHRISTIAN PASTOR, BUT AFTER YAHSUA TOLD ME THAT I SHOULD WORSHIP HIM IN HIS REAL NAME,I HAD TO CHANGE,JUST PRAY FOR ME,AM THE PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN YAHSUA IN UGANDA,Shlifaah@gmail.com

I am currently finishing a novel based on the Jesus narrative, primarily using the synoptic gospels, and came across your article on "Hebrew Names for Jewish Apostles." I'd like permission to use the spelling of names you refer to in that article instead of the westernized forms that are normally seen.

I'd credit you with that use and list the link for your article in a preface to my book, if given permission to do so. I realize that the names themselves are not sourced only by you, but out of courtesy I'd like to mention you as my source and give readers the opportunity to explore your articles/blogs for themselves.

Please respond to this request via e-mail, if possible. See my info below.

Thank you so much, Marc, for reading my blog and taking the time to comment. Please forgive me for not responding sooner. Thank you also for your kind words. I appreciate it greatly. Your book sounds fascinating and I wish you much success with it.

Excellent. A nice summary of what it took me many years to research decades ago. I found this page as part of my current interfaith / environmental book research.
'It Only Gets Better".
Seven spiritual warriors guided by the Divine time travel to change the past to save the future.
I love the "Deeds not creeds" like my favorite archaic Hebrew proverb.
"Actions speak louder then prayers" Blessings Marc

As for your question: The traditional Jewish belief (of which I share, being a Jew) is that Jesus was not the Messiah and could not be son of God in a literal sense. While there is indeed overlap between these two great relgions, the idea of God having a son is simply incongruant with the traditional Jewish understanding of God. Trinitarism is fully not part of Judaism.

As for the Messiah, the Jewish view is that he will be a mere mortal who will lead Isarel and all mankind into a golden age, which has yet to be realized.

In short, yes, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, whoever that person will be.

You honor Paul for turning the message of Jesus into a religion in his name that totally dwarfs Judaism...but you ignore the fact that the first Christ must be a farce for your new Christ to come? You are still waiting for the true Jeshua..
Right?

Thanks, again, Tranna, for your newest comment! As to your questions/comments--there is much in what you say. Women were not treated in the same manner as men in ancient times. That said, within Judaisim, women were not the same, but one could say that such fact did not mean that they were treated poorly. Thus, for example, a husband was (and is, to this day) obligated to satisfy his wife; she has no such obligation to satisfy him. In fact, the "ketubah," the marriage contract, is unilateral in nature: the husband makes promises to the wife (to pay for medical expenses, to feed her, clothe her, ransom her). If you are interested, you can check this out for a sample ketubah and explanation. http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9290-ketubah While this might seem unusual from our p;respective, from a perspective of 3,000 years ago, this was nothing if not revolutionary.

Thank you for your quick response! I must confess the Anglosized names of the disciples made me ask myself what else did the translators "editorialize" in order to satisfy the monarch that commissioned the work. Certainly, when it comes to education, the poor seldom had the opportunity to go to school for any length of time. In England and other countries, the Bible was used as the primary teaching tool and school for the poor was the responsibility of the church. The teachings put the fear of God in people to promote obedience and control the masses. An example of religion used as a political tool to control society can be identified in the legal position that women in society intrinsically as being of less value than men as seen in their struggle to be recognized as "Persons in the eyes of the law", in the restriction placed on physians prohibiting them from informing women about how their reproductive system worked, and women being viewed as chattel or simply one of their husband's possessions! I could go on, but I am sure that these beliefs and values were not the word of God! What are your thoughts about my suspicions?

What a great question, Tranna! In short, yes, I do believe that the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (what Jews call the Torah) are we're authored by God. I also believe that the balance of the Hebrew Scriptures were authored by men inspired by God. Of course, we do not have the original holographs, making biblical scholarship truly worthwhile. Additonally, the Hebrew Scritpures (what Christians know as the Old Testament) were intended for the Jewish people, although history clearly tells us that other people derive great understanding from reading these works.

Of course, as a Jew, I do not believe that the Christian Scriptures (what Christians know as the New Testament) were Divinely authored or inspired. If I did, I would be Christian! Needless to say, I say this with the utmost respect.

Along these lines, Paul of Tarsus was a brilliant man. He took the religion of Jesus and turned it into a religion about Jesus. In the process, he made his works universal--not just for Greeks or Roman's, but for anyone. Brilliant, truly brilliant. Which probably explains why there are 15 million Jews today and 2 billion Christians.

Thanks for reading my blog and commenting. I hope you will continue to do so!

I have a broader question that relates to the topic of biblical translations. I have always known that those Anglosized names were not the real names of the disciples. I understand the rationale of giving the disciples common non-Jewish names so that Enish speaking people could better relate to the stories of Christ. On thinking about the licence taken by the translators, I wonder just how far they went to making the stories from a foreign culture fit into their readers' culture. I am a teacher who taught students concepts that were foreign to many of them. As such, I needed to frame my explanations in a way that they could embrace and explore. Language is important because the meaning of our culture and its beliefs and values are embedded in the words and the context in which they are used. Are you confident that the lessons taught in the Bible truly represent the word of God?

Thank you so much, Tony, for reading my blog and for your nice comment. There are some English-language Bibles out there that use the Hebraic names of Jesus and the others (e.g. Miriam for Mary). You can find these on line. Thanks again, and please visit again soon!

Thank you for this commentary on the correct names.It is high time that publishers and translators of bibles into English made the public aware of the correct names by putting in the correct names in the bibles in English. I think it is blasphemy to invent names that have no meaning .
Yeshua (Jesus) was Hebrew and so were his disciples and their actual names should appear in the English bibles.
Thank you.

Thank you for this well researched and highly informative post.
I was especially interested to see that the original Aramaic or Hebrew names are closely similar to Christian names in South India.
My mother belongs to the Syrian Christian community of Kerala in India. This is a population that is descended (or converted by) Syrian traders from the time of Christ.
While modern names within the community tend to be more Anglicized, the traditional names have survived the millennia. Chako (Jacob), Mathai (Matthew), Ouseph (Joseph), Yohan (John), Thoma (Thomas), Avira (Abraham) and Chandy (Alexander) are all common names within this community.

Ira,
Thank you very much for this information sir. It had been on my mind for quite some time to find out the actual Hebrew, ethnic origins of the Apostle's names to share in my ministry if you don't object. I am a truth seeker and I like to refer to Jesus with His Jewish name, so this was truly helpful to me.I feel that true education needs to be dismmenated to all.

Thanks so much for writing, Chris. Your points are well taken. Here is another: Isn't it fascinating that Jews had Greek names, when the Maccabees began their rebellion against the Greco-Syrians in 175 B.C.E. to stop assimilation and eradication of Judaism. So the Maccabees won, and Hellenization still made its way into the culture. Sigh.

Oh, and please forgive me for taking time to replay. I have been having a technical problem.

May I add, There is people named Joshua in New Testament, there is no way any of the Gospel writers would have translated Their own Jewish names unless they had to and where ever they do it is mentioned.Levi- Matthew, Emmanuel/ Joshua/ Jesus , Peter Simon Cephas.When John the Baptist is named, Angel gives the name. When Jesus is named Angel gives the name. Why would gospel writer go to that length to tell where name came from then afterwards Translate it. Even those who first wrote it in Greek could have mentioned as in other passages where second names are mentioned.

Interesting discussion
But why does there seem to be a understanding that Hebrews didnt get greek names? Paul is identified with both Saul and Paul. So is Peter and Cephas and Simon. Gospels go to length to explain these names. Maybe they just had Greek names just as today most people have english names even though they are not english.

Thank you for reading my blog, Michael, and for commenting. The research you did on Andrew is interesting. I have learned something! As for Philip, as I indicated in the post, I just can't identify him with a Hebrew counter-part. So, you and I both remain in the dark. Perhaps someone else will be able to shed some light. Again, many thanks for reading my blog.

I have been kicking this name thing around for a while, and learning some Hebrew as a practical hobby. When I searched for a meaning of the name Andrew, I came back with manly. When I used Google translate I tried both manly and masculine, the result was the same Hebrew word, gabri. To me, this makes sense with the Hebrew name, Gabriel, meaning, man of God. So, Andrew's real name may have simply been Gabri. The one I am really having trouble with is, Philip. From Greek, it translates to, friend of horses. My searches have returned that there is no Hebrew equivalent. From cross-reference searches, I have found merea and chaver both translate to, friend, and horses is soosim. I have no idea if these have ever been used as names. Any thoughts? If anyone sees this, and has any input, my email address is howardstreethooligans@gmail.com